Intellectual Property

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 8:11 pm

Who owns your ideas? You or your boss?

Ex-Employee Sues Toshiba

Shinya Amano, who is now a professor at the Shonan Institute of Technology, said in his written complaint that although the firm obtained patents for the technologies in conjunction with him and three others, and paid him tens of thousands yen annually in remuneration, he actually developed the technologies alone. He is claiming 10% of an estimated profit of 2.6 billion yen earned by the firm in 1996 and 1997, compared with the roughly 230,000 yen he actually received in the two years.

Japan Today

grh · Post by **grh** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 8:34 pm

Unless he did it on his own time, with his own resources, it ain't his, IMO. And if he did do it on his own time and with his own resources, then handed it over to them, he should have to pay them for having been that stupid.:wah:

I am paid for using my intellect(the fools:D). Any ideas and solutions I propose and they opt to use, are theirs. If I have a moment of genius and don't develop and market it on my own time and with my own resources(taking them out of the loop),tough nuts to me.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 8:40 pm

I'm thinking he would have had a tough case to start with. Having already signed to a deal for less percentage all he can claim is that he was insane at the time of signing. :p

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 1:27 pm

If he truly believed he was the sole proprieter of the technology why is he only going after 10%?

If he developed the gadget on their dime because thats what he was being paid to do then there should be no question they had a mutual agreement. If he developed it after work in his basement then it belongs to him.

(non-legalese thought)

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 1:40 pm

What about the three other persons involved? If he already signed a deal, and previously said they helped in some manner, I don't think he has any chance of winning this suit.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 2:06 pm

The only thing that I can think of that makes sense of his original compensation and his current request for more was that his contract with the company gave him intellectual rights to a limited extent. He must have decided that the technology in question did not fall within the parameters of his active agreement at the time.

If he wins I'd be shocked.

History buff · Post by **History buff** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:55 am

Nomad;737108 wrote: If he truly believed he was the sole proprieter of the technology why is he only going after 10%?

If he developed the gadget on their dime because thats what he was being paid to do then there should be no question they had a mutual agreement. If he developed it after work in his basement then it belongs to him.

(non-legalese thought)

I have some employment law knowledge and that "is" a very legalese thought. "Most generally", when a person is employed by a company and invents/discovers an element/product on thier time, this is a "work for hire" and the employer retains or owns the IP/patent rights, etc., and will be considered so by a court.

Say Joe is a chemist for X company. While doing research for them he discovers/invents a brand new element that will take it's place on the periodic table along side silver and gold and makes them millions. Unless there is an express agreement to the contrary, the employer owns the formula/rights to it.